Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Topher said:
Really should be. And to follow up with that.....

From last year's top 20 best sellers on each console's platform, 16 out of the 17 third party games on PlayStation best sellers were also best sellers on Xbox. Three of the games on each list were first party. So only one third party game from each list were not on both console's list.

From last year's top 20 best sellers list for Nintendo, only ONE game is found on Xbox or PlayStation's best sellers list: Minecraft.

[/URL]

The conclusion here is not that Switch isn't in the same video game market as Xbox/PS, rather that there is enough diversity within the same market that Nintendo can thrive with a unique selection of games simply not found on Xbox and PlayStation. There is overlap in areas and with some third party games beyond the top 20, but there are distinct and key differences and the games show us this clearly.
Click to expand...
I would also add in something like:

If we're going to get weird we might as well throw mobile into the mix.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Nope what? See.... You never actually ever answer anything. Just convinced of your own position that you attempt to will your opinion into fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Besides, if it's cause switch is for kids - the number of 12 years calling me a cock and tra bagging every 30 seconds tells me COD would thrive there.
 
Agent Icebeezy said:
I took that delay with the same sentiment. They can clean up the bugs. I regard this game as the second most important release in Microsoft's gaming history. It's Halo 1 and then it's this. Releasing in a broken state was out of the question. It's going to be the cleanest game Bethesda has ever released.
Click to expand...

What many people largely overlook is that Bethesda hasn't really been dropping these ultra buggy games that people believe they've been dropping for years. Know where the reputation came from? Their horrible PS3 releases during the 360 generation. On 360, Oblivion was excellent at launch, as was Skyrim. They were no more buggy or problematic than any other game I had ever played at launch to that point. I played through significant chunks of both Oblivion and Skryim at launch with zero issues. That doesn't mean nobody encountered issues, but I'm saying for a fact I never did.

And reading what Bethesda and Todd Howard are saying lately, maybe it makes some sense the experience was always so good on Xbox as Todd revealed it was always the primary target platform for their games. And just looking at reviews and remembering the people I know who were playing Fallout 4 at launch back when it dropped, I also don't recall getting many complaints about it being highly buggy or unplayable on Xbox consoles then either.

I can't speak on Fallout games at launch because I've never played a fallout game at launch. I learned to appreciate Fallout later around the time Fallout 4 launched on Xbox One X, and that's how I got into the franchise. I honestly never looked at it deeply enough to realize it was an actual RPG. I saw the first person mode, the gun during Fallout 3 reveal and honestly never gave franchise another look again until it got updated for Xbox One X. It just struck me as a bad looking shooter back then. Had I bothered to pay close enough attention to the game back then to learn that it was a serious RPG, I would've given it a chance. But better late than never I always say.
 
akimbo009 said:
Nope what? See.... You never actually ever answer anything. Just convinced of your own position that you attempt to will your opinion into fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Besides, if it's cause switch is for kids - the number of 12 years calling me a cock and tra bagging every 30 seconds tells me COD would thrive there.
Click to expand...
Because, this has been described ad nauseum in this thread with a massive circle jerk of recycled retardation.

Use the search feature, you will find your answers there.
 
akimbo009 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
White Goodman Reaction GIF
 
akimbo009 said:
Nope what? See.... You never actually ever answer anything. Just convinced of your own position that you attempt to will your opinion into fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Besides, if it's cause switch is for kids - the number of 12 years calling me a cock and tra bagging every 30 seconds tells me COD would thrive there.
Click to expand...

How does it feel knowing I only need 30% of my power to tbag you every 30 seconds?
 
DeepEnigma said:
Demographics are not just age. :pie_eyeroll:

CoD players as example are not marketed to for a Switch platform.
Click to expand...
Why would it be marketed for a console that it isn't even on?

My point still stands, as in, the same people that buy a Switch, also buy a Xbox or PS. Its all the same market.
 
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...gamers-challenging-69-billion-activision-deal
The new suit names Microsoft, but not Activision, as a defendant.

Like the FTC, the gamers are seeking a court order prohibiting the companies from consummating the transaction. Their complaint cites concerns that the merger would give Microsoft enough clout over multiple levels of the gaming industry "to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition."

"Microsoft already controls one of the industry's most popular and largest video game ecosystems," the suit says. "The proposed acquisition would give Microsoft an unrivaled position in the gaming industry, leaving it with the greatest number of must-have games and iconic franchises."

Microsoft didn't immediately have a comment Tuesday.

According to the complaint, the planned merger would give Microsoft outsized power in the industry's overlapping product markets, such as console, PC, cloud-based, and mobile gaming. The tech giant would also allegedly gain an edge in markets covering top-tier "AAA" games, subscription services, and consoles themselves.

Both Activision's and Microsoft's gaming divisions are already the result of past major mergers reflecting "a dramatic wave of consolidation" following a "long history of concentration" in gaming markets that continues to threaten the sector's competitive landscape, the suit says.

The merger would also allegedly combine two of the few large companies currently competing for workers with the "specialized talent" to make video games. That would reduce employee mobility and leverage at exactly the wrong time, when Activision is "engulfed in lawsuits" over its toxic culture of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, according to the complaint.

That allegation echoes an unrelated shareholder case challenging the deal from a different angle. The investor lawsuit—filed by a Swedish state-run pension fund holding Activision shares—accuses the companies of engineering an underpriced merger to exploit Activision's workplace scandals and protect its embattled CEO.

The antitrust lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Cause of Action: Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Relief: An injunction against the merger, invalidation of the deal's termination fee provisions, costs, and fees.

Attorneys: The gamers are represented by Alioto Law Firm, Alioto Legal, and Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP.
Click to expand...

Alright, which of you gaffers in CA helped file the suit? Lol.

The concerns cited is MS may "to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition." and that "Microsoft already controls one of the industry's most popular and largest video game ecosystems,"

But I don't see how the deal would "foreclose" rivals or block competition when the competition will still be there. Game Pass works against the raising prices claim as well.

The big thing with this lawsuit is that it's not directed at all to Activision, this is a lawsuit that is specifically against Microsoft and is specifically targeting them. It is rather curious that these gamers would leave Activision out of the suit.
 
Who?

64bitmodels said:
MS is getting lawsuits up to their neck with this lawsuit. It's definitely not going through now
Click to expand...

I think you need to take a moment to review the lawsuits that Microsoft and companies like it have fought and won.

Not only they're going to win in court, but it's going to be quite public and it's going to reduce the power of antitrust buffoons, which can only be a good thing. Bureaucrats and politicians have been sticking their nose in various industries way too much.
 
Last edited:
Eddie-Griffin said:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antit...gamers-challenging-69-billion-activision-deal


Alright, which of you gaffers in CA helped file the suit? Lol.

The concerns cited is MS may "to foreclose rivals, limit output, reduce consumer choice, raise prices, and further inhibit competition." and that "Microsoft already controls one of the industry's most popular and largest video game ecosystems,"

But I don't see how the deal would "foreclose" rivals or block competition when the competition will still be there. Game Pass works against the raising prices claim as well.

The big thing with this lawsuit is that it's not directed at all to Activision, this is a lawsuit that is specifically against Microsoft and is specifically targeting them. It is rather curious that these gamers would leave Activision out of the suit.
Click to expand...
San Fran gamers suing?

WTF, I love this deal now.
 
reksveks said:
Alot of options for MS here, they (MS) have talk about the concessions about the same content at the same time on other consoles, maybe something that the EC force if MS wants to get the deal through. This may be relatively worse for Sony cause they already have exclusive consoles need a game in the genre.


Bigger publishers and teams using Unreal will probably say that it isn't an big/major issue. I wonder if this is to force MS to support cross-play for ABK and maybe further.



Big big question here, specially the second one. I think publishers are going to reply with a 'big' %.
Click to expand...
In reference to these 3 questions they're asking specifically. Is it possible that there could be possible ramifications that aren't being considered regarding the market as a whole, or would they only apply this logic to this deal in isolation?

Let me explain. In the second question above in regards to crossplay. If they conclude that crossplay is indeed imperative for competition. Could that conclusion have implications for Sony further down the road? Seeing as we learned that Sony required cash in order to allow crossplay on games such as Fortnite, could a ruling here, automatically trigger an anticompetitive case there? Forcing MS to enable crossplay, while not only not doing the same for Sony, but actually having to compensate them for it seems incredibly biased.

In the first question, if they bar MS from having additional content and the like on their console, and deem that uncompetitive behavior. What are the consequences (if any) from Sony having exclusive CoD content currently?

As for the third question. I agree that it will most likely result in a slew of "It depends on the %" answers. However, I'm curious as to what the regulators do with the info. Would they reason that so long as a competitor doesn't lose access to a certain % of content, then they are effectively competing? I'm wondering if this isn't a backdoor path in order to isolate Nintendo. If nothing else, depending on the answers it might be possible
 
Abriael_GN said:
I think you need to take a moment to review the lawsuits that Microsoft and companies like it have fought and won.
Click to expand...
not when every US state and every single gamer is trying to sue. they've got the FTC, CMA, Sony, and now fucking San Fransisco on their ass... for what? COD?
 
64bitmodels said:
MS is getting lawsuits up to their neck with this acquisition. It's definitely not going through now
Click to expand...

Nah, this new one will likely get tossed in preference of the FTC. And consumer antitrust in district courts usually favor companies. Any blocking action will be with the FTC not this one.
 
akimbo009 said:
Cause Activision are full of a bunch of douchebags.

They used to, but bailed. EA did for a long time too. But I'm not in the rooms so could be any number of reasons but it's so dominating on all platforms it's on I'm certain it'd also be the top or near top seller there too no matter the downgrade.
Click to expand...
Please. Just accept defeat, grow up and become a better person. This is embarrassing:

YxprJ2X.jpg

Publisher dosen't even bother sending review codes/copies.


X5ZMIPt.png


I don't see fifa on that Nintendo list.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Again, you made another FTC argument.

We have come full circle.
Click to expand...
Again, no I didn't. The next Nintendo platform (which should release within the next 2 years) will be able to run CoD. Which is why Nintendo signed the 10-year deal.

If these are the FTC's arguments then they are going to get decimated in court.
 
Last edited:
bxrz said:
Again, no I didn't. The next Nintendo platform (which should release within the next 2 years) will be able to run CoD in some fashion. Which is why Nintendo signed the 10-year deal.

If these are the FTC's arguments then they are going to get decimated in court.
Click to expand...
The FTC literally said that people who purchase a Nintendo solely, only do so for Nintendo's games, the demographics that like third party, tend to purchase the Switch as a companion device for Nintendo's games to go along with either Xbox or PlayStation which are the same high end 3rd party demographic.

They also said that the Switch is not a "premium" console when it comes to high end tech like the other two are.

So yes, you made BOTH the exact same arguments the FTC did.

FTC - 1
bxrz - 0
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo said:
Please. Just accept defeat, grow up and become a better person. This is embarrassing:

YxprJ2X.jpg

Publisher dosen't even bother sending review codes/copies.


X5ZMIPt.png


I don't see fifa on that Nintendo list.
Click to expand...

You dummy. I said EA also did, which they did for years and only came back in 2017. Not a shock that they are lagging - but that's why EA and Activitision are douchebags. It's not that they can't launch on these platforms they choose not to.

And COD is hugely more popular than even FIFA. Apples to oranges.

www.eurogamer.net

EA returns to Nintendo with FIFA for Switch

EA is once again back on a Nintendo platform, with FIFA confirmed for Switch.
www.eurogamer.net www.eurogamer.net
 
DeepEnigma said:
The FTC literally said that people who purchase a Nintendo solely, only do so for Nintendo's games, the demographics that like third party, tend to purchase the Switch as a companion device for Nintendo's games to go along with either Xbox or PlayStation which are the same high end 3rd party demographic.

They also said that the Switch is not a "premium" console when it comes to high end tech like the other two are.

So yes, you made BOTH the exact same arguments the FTC did.

FTC - 1
bxrz - 0
Click to expand...
High-end tech is irrelevant. The average gamer, that the FTC is referring to, doesn't care about high-end tech. And we know that by the sales numbers of the Switch console outselling the PS and Xbox and Nintendo's games outselling PS and Xbox's games.

Going by the FTC's arguments, Nintendo is a monopoly. It's a completely laughable argument that isn't backed by any actual facts

They're going to get decimated in court. They're holes in all of their arguments.

And they aren't even taking into account the next Nintendo platform, which should be announced before the first hearing date in August 2023, which will have CoD on it because it will be powerful enough to run it.

They have no actual argument and all the antitrust analysts are telling you the same thing. In fact, the FTC most likely knows they don't have a good argument. They are banking on the CMA/EU Commission to block it.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Lel whut. It's an annual franchise that sells 20+ million every year, like COD
Click to expand...

Dude... COD sells 30+ a year which is 50% more than FIFA. Even looking at those charts FIFA is out sold by Halo and barely above Ghosts.

It's sales are another level and would definitely move the needle over on Nintendo platforms.
 
www.docdroid.net

Consumers_complaint_against_ms_abk.pdf

Case 3:22-cv-08991 Document 1 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 45. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Joseph M. Alioto (State Bar No 42680) Tatiana V. Wallace (SBN 233939) ALIOTO LAW FIRM One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-8900 Facsimile: (415) 434-9200 Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com...
www.docdroid.net www.docdroid.net

For the lawsuit, it's 10 people who filed the lawsuit.
 
reksveks said:
www.docdroid.net

Consumers_complaint_against_ms_abk.pdf

Case 3:22-cv-08991 Document 1 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 45. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Joseph M. Alioto (State Bar No 42680) Tatiana V. Wallace (SBN 233939) ALIOTO LAW FIRM One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-8900 Facsimile: (415) 434-9200 Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com...
www.docdroid.net www.docdroid.net

For the lawsuit, it's 10 people who filed the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

So we know at least Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping one of them, who else in this thread did this? ;)
 
reksveks said:
www.docdroid.net

Consumers_complaint_against_ms_abk.pdf

Case 3:22-cv-08991 Document 1 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 45. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Joseph M. Alioto (State Bar No 42680) Tatiana V. Wallace (SBN 233939) ALIOTO LAW FIRM One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-8900 Facsimile: (415) 434-9200 Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com...
www.docdroid.net www.docdroid.net

For the lawsuit, it's 10 people who filed the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
They need to sue their shithole city first.

Sorry, but I can't take this first world privilege shit seriously from that place of all places.
 
Last edited:
bxrz said:
People were saying Nintendo doesn't sell in the same market area as Xbox and Playstation before this? Show me lol.

Nintendo put out documents that showed that their demographic is the same as Xbox and Playstation. The majority of people that own a Switch are in their 20s, as with Xbox and PS
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "this" now. People were saying that Nintendo doesn't compete in the same market before the FTC were even legally allowed to say anything.
 
gothmog said:
I would also add in something like:
[/URL]

If we're going to get weird we might as well throw mobile into the mix.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: When the "top selling games" wikipedia page was brought up by some lawyer days before the FTC sued somebody decided to go and remove overwatch 1 from that list as it was something like 5th or 6th and move it into the playercount one even though Overwatch 1 wasn't free. Wonder who that was.
 
akimbo009 said:
Nope what? See.... You never actually ever answer anything. Just convinced of your own position that you attempt to will your opinion into fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Besides, if it's cause switch is for kids - the number of 12 years calling me a cock and tra bagging every 30 seconds tells me COD would thrive there.
Click to expand...
He's just telling you you're wrong and you can fact check it yourself. COD released on the Wii U. Go look at the top selling Wii U games. It's not there.
 
SenjutsuSage said:
What many people largely overlook is that Bethesda hasn't really been dropping these ultra buggy games that people believe they've been dropping for years. Know where the reputation came from? Their horrible PS3 releases during the 360 generation. On 360, Oblivion was excellent at launch, as was Skyrim. They were no more buggy or problematic than any other game I had ever played at launch to that point. I played through significant chunks of both Oblivion and Skryim at launch with zero issues. That doesn't mean nobody encountered issues, but I'm saying for a fact I never did.

And reading what Bethesda and Todd Howard are saying lately, maybe it makes some sense the experience was always so good on Xbox as Todd revealed it was always the primary target platform for their games. And just looking at reviews and remembering the people I know who were playing Fallout 4 at launch back when it dropped, I also don't recall getting many complaints about it being highly buggy or unplayable on Xbox consoles then either.

I can't speak on Fallout games at launch because I've never played a fallout game at launch. I learned to appreciate Fallout later around the time Fallout 4 launched on Xbox One X, and that's how I got into the franchise. I honestly never looked at it deeply enough to realize it was an actual RPG. I saw the first person mode, the gun during Fallout 3 reveal and honestly never gave franchise another look again until it got updated for Xbox One X. It just struck me as a bad looking shooter back then. Had I bothered to pay close enough attention to the game back then to learn that it was a serious RPG, I would've given it a chance. But better late than never I always say.
Click to expand...
I don't trust the Creation Engine to work on Bethesda's timetable. I do under Microsoft's. Todd probably looked at Cyberpunk and thought they would give them cover to release this year. I'm glad Phil and the gang said no.
 
Last edited:
Agent Icebeezy said:
I don't trust the Creation Engine to work on Bethesda's timetable. I do under Microsoft's. Todd probably looked at Cyberpunk and thought they would give them cover to release this year. I'm glad Phil and the gang said no.
Click to expand...
This makes zero sense. Microsoft almost let 343i release Halo: Infinite a year early. It was only the sound of the public laughing at them that made them reconsider. Sure they might have learned a lesson but for the most part they wrongly allow these studios to operate in a vacuum. It's about market control and not any kind of economies of scale that having a huge publishing house would bring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
1K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
7K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
19K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom